Top
530°

Nintendo: using Nvidia on the Switch was “top priority”

The company cites Nvidia's "key role in realizing PC gaming graphics".

Read Full Story >>
nintendotoday.com
The story is too old to be commented.
masterfox773d ago

So many damn Nividia GPUs outthere and Nintendo went for a mobile one ?, seriously Nintendo couldn't you at least try to implement a proper GPU ? how about put one in that docking thing ?, oh yeah I forgot you give a damn about innovation & gamers, and care only about greed.

Neonridr773d ago

let's wait until we see the entire roadmap. what you described could end up being the Supplemental Computing Device that Nintendo filed patents for last year. Could be a way to increase the docked performance even more down the road.

Surprised it took this long for a console to go back to Nvidia considering their success in the GPU world. They couldn't exactly fit a 1060 or something like that in the Switch unit, so a Tegra was right in line with their vision.

stuna1773d ago

Do you really believe seeing the entire roadmap will change the eventual realization that Switch will turn out just like a large group of gamers already know it will turn out!? Another half-step made by Nintendo to try to recapture the glory days of the WII!

My take is, it'll start out fun, but that fun will wear thin real quick just like the WII..

Neonridr773d ago

@stuna1 - the console's main function, the whole idea behind this thing is the fact that you can take it with you or play it on your TV. That's the whole reason for the name of the console. Sure there are *some* titles that utilize motion controls. But don't kid yourself. Casuals don't buy 3DS's or Vita's, at least not the same casuals that bought the Wii. This thing is still a gaming machine first. Sure it's not as powerful as the others, but the N64 was the last time Nintendo wanted to have the most powerful hardware out there.

ABizzel1773d ago

The companies left NVIDIA, because NVIDIA cost more than AMD in the desktop range with often minor power differences (and I would assume this was big in bargaining between Sony & MS).

In the case of a console where every dollar matters towards your end profit, it didn't and doesn't make sense to go with NVIDIA for a 10% - 20% boost in performance (which translates to a few fps), at the cost of $50 or more added to your console. Especially if that means your competitor is going to be $50 less, or making a profit that can be put towards software, while you're barely breaking even.

It just doesn't make sense for a budget friendly gaming device (which is what a console i supposed to be).

NVIDIA priced themselves out of that market, since they know they own the PC GPU market, but the tables turned on them this gen.

Maybay773d ago

If you want the "best of the best," PC is where you should be. In a couple of years, people will be playing AAA games on their smart phones with Bluetooth controllers.

fenome773d ago

You can count me out on playing AAA on my smart phone, that's what I bought my big ass TV for.

OmnislashVer36773d ago

Yeah but Nintendo games don't come out on PC. All the more reason to why they should have made a competent console. Something at around 1TFLOPS would have been $250 and really make their games shine with their art style. I think even PC gamers would be jealous of how beautiful Nintendo games could be with that kind of power.

yeahokwhatever773d ago

oh because mobile tech will keep improving and desktop tech wont? you make no sense.

Maybay773d ago

@fenome

Obviously the Smart Phones will connect to the TV... 😂

bluefox755773d ago

No they won't. People (generally speaking) don't want to play AAA games on mobile. They want games that are accessible and can be played in short bursts. Home console is where the demand for AAA is. I can't believe Nintendo doesn't see this.

conanlifts773d ago (Edited 773d ago )

@ omnislash....switch is around 1tflop. At a minimum it is 0.875 tflop but possibly more with customisations.

Digital foundry reported switch is slightly more powerful than the wii u while undocked. Wii u is 350gflops. They also reported docked it is 2.5x this power...2.5x 350 is .875gflops plus 2.5x slightly more ( whatever slightly more is).

So a minimum .875 + a bit more.

OmnislashVer36773d ago

There are no reports of it being 2.5x Wii U's power when docked, the only reports are that it's 40% of the power when undocked. Seriously wait for the specs, you're going to be disappointed.

conanlifts773d ago (Edited 773d ago )

@ omnislash "There are no reports of it being 2.5x Wii U's power when docked"

"Quote from digital foundry "

"As things stand, a docked Switch features a GPU with 2.5x the power of the same unit running from battery. "

"Even a 307.2MHz GPU based on Maxwell technology should be capable of out-performing Wii U"

"307.2MHz - meaning that in portable mode, Switch runs at exactly 40 per cent of the clock-speed of the fully docked device."

https://www.google.com.au/a...

We know undocked switch is at least equal to the wii u. Just look at mk8, zelda etc. It runs these ports equal to or better than the wii u while undocked. Then docked it is 2.5x the power.....so it is at least 2.5x the power of a wii u.
Plus 1080p (mk8) requires at least 2x the power to increase from 720p to 1080p.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 773d ago
yeahokwhatever773d ago

A proper GPU would use more power than the entire Switch console. Should tell you right there what to expect performance-wise. If Nvidia had magic, it would already be in their desktop GPUs.

badz149773d ago

Yeah, because there are no "m" variants for those GPUs that uses less power than their PC counterparts /s

yeahokwhatever773d ago

Are you telling me, with a straight face, right now, if I have a mobile 1070 and run it against a desktop 1070 they will be equal? Tell me, why does Nvida need desktop versions if the mobile ones are smaller, cheaper, and run cooler?

badz149772d ago

you just want those with less power, right? at least those are better than Tegra

instantstupor772d ago

@badz149 Yea, but even the "mobile" variants of nVidia draw significantly more power than a Tegra. Orders of magnitude more. A GTX 1050 mobile might be able to draw somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 watts (possibly more like 50) and Tegra - a chip which is an entire System on a Chip - draws in the neighborhood of 10 watts total. Obviously Nintendo is completely locked out of power like that if they want to remain mobile in a tablet sized device, only reaching laptop class parts if they want laptop sized form-factors and battery packs.

Not suggesting it was the right choice, just saying that even the lowest powered "m" class card would draw far too much for Switch to operate in handheld mode.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 772d ago
ZeroX9876773d ago

@masterfox

well to create a handheld, they had to put a mobile GPU in it. oh wait, it's a HOME CONSOLE as per Nintendo......

WeedyOne773d ago

A mobile GPU for a mobile console.... who would have thunk it??? LOL

I guess you want them to fit a GTX1080 in the tablet eh? A GTX 1080 alone is bigger than the entire console...

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 772d ago
Software_Lover773d ago

More like.........

Nvidia: Getting our chip on atleast one console was "top priority". We couldn't be completely left out.

yarbie1000773d ago

Nvidia has been doing just fine without consoles

MyDietEqualsGames773d ago (Edited 773d ago )

They could be doing better with them, but I am glad Amd got in there.

Cobra951773d ago

They would be doing better with the consoles added to their portfolio. That AMD got the PS4 and the X1 has got to be a sore spot.

yeahokwhatever773d ago

Thats why Nvidia didnt waste any effort in just selling Nintendo the Nvidia Shield.

Vhampir773d ago

No.... more like...

Nvidia: We can't sell these damn shields, we need to dump these old processors!

2pacalypsenow773d ago

Nvidia doesnt have a great track record with consoles, they screwed the Xbox and the Ps3 I hope it doesnt happen to nintendo.

GrontB773d ago

I'm not saying your wrong, but how did it screw the ps3? I can't see how Nvidia harmed (screwed) it.

Kaneki-Ken773d ago

I don't know about last generation but I know during the making of PS4, PlayStation try to work a deal with Nvidia but NV wanted more money and PlayStation jump ship to AMD who offer a great deal. I also hear the same story with the Xbone.

2pacalypsenow773d ago (Edited 773d ago )

Yep, they blasted consoles on their "Margins" and said they are not profitable.

And I got confused with IBM on the Ps3 so Nvidia didnt screw Sony.

Cobra951773d ago

Picture me confused as well. Sony screwed themselves with the convoluted Cell and its limited subprocessors. That was not (and can't believe ever would have been) an Nvidia project.

Blood_Spiller773d ago (Edited 773d ago )

The GPU that shipped with the PS3 was Nvidia and wasn't as advanced as the one found in the Xbox 360 (AMD). The Xbox 360 was the first device to have a Unified Shader architecture, even beating PCs to this if memory serves me right. That unified architecture helped the Xbox 360 pull out to an early lead graphically speaking.

yeahokwhatever773d ago

@Blood_spiller
No. The early "graphics lead" was entirely based on the fact that third parties did not actually use the Cell initially. They limited themselves to the Power PC Core + GPU and as soon as the Cell was being utilized the tables turned. The Cell is a crazy beast for graphic/physics intensive workloads and the system was designed to be supplemented by it. People initially over hyped the 360's GPU, and under hyped the GPU in the PS3 simply because the masses found it easier to afford the 360. When people opt for the cheaper thing, they have a natural tendency to justify it.

SonyWarrior773d ago (Edited 773d ago )

nvidia didnt screw ps3.... the only reason sony went with amd for ps4 was because at the time amd was extremely desprite to get the deal they were on the brink of bankrupcy and basicly offered such a low deal that nvidia didnt want to counter offer it was too low for nividia to bother with and of course when offered something for 80% less then its compitition sony went with AMD. AMD just needed it to keep the lights on in there building they arent really making any thing off the deal profit wise

badz149773d ago

I believe nVidia is not to be blamed for the PS3 issues. In fact, Sony initially didn't even want to put a dedicated GPU in the PS3 because they wanted to do it solely using the CELL BE just like how they used the EE in the PS2 but it was too drastic and they decided to couple the CELL with the RSX, a nVidia custom made, underclocked 7800GTX. It was not supposed to handle graphics alone but most 3rd parties did it anyway to unsatisfactory results because CELL is kinda alien to them at first.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 773d ago
Segata773d ago

They did not screw PS3. Sony decided to have no GPU and just two CELL processors. Last minute Sony changed their minds and asked Nvidia and with what little time they had whipped up something.

corroios773d ago

At least it should have tegra x2...

mcstorm773d ago

I think they want with the x1 because of cost more than anything else. Plus from what I have read it's not just an out of the box x1.

I think people need to stop going on about power ect and let the developers show off what the console can do.

Game on the Xbox one ps4 and wiiu looked amazing so no reason they can't on the switch. Add that the switch can be used as a portable to it adds something different to the other to.

For me I did not want a console the same as the ps4/Xbox one I wanted something different and really like the look of the switch. It may not get the big 3rd party games like GTA ect but I don't think Nintendo need that to sell their consoles.

Only time will tell if the switch is a hit or not with the public.

badz149773d ago

"For me I did not want a console the same as the ps4/Xbox one I wanted something different..."

I think many wished the Switch to be as powerful as those 2. Imagine a Nintendo's console with the PS4's power and Nintendo's IPs. Wouldn't that be wonderful? And 3rd parties can release their games as usual like they do on those 2 too due to the parity in power. That particular console would dominate the market easy. That's how you set yourself different from the others, exclusives, not this going underpowered BS! And they have the guts to sell it at the same price as the most dominant console this gen too. What Nintendo is doing right now is not being different, but rather them being stupid or outright crazy!

mcstorm773d ago

@badz that still would not of mattered. People pick anything to moan about. If it was more powerful they would of picked on the cost or not having a normal controller in the box, online cost ect. No matter what Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo do the fan boys/keyboard worriers will be out.

773d ago